Talk in the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the 8th Central Committee of
the CCP[1]

China has had two revolutions. During the period of democratic revolution
it was anti-imperialism, anti-feudalism, and anti-bureaucratic capitalism;
only within the party was there a struggle against the capitalist ideology
of the national bourgeoisie. At that time there were two roads, the road
of liberation and the road of colonialism. The socialist revolution is to
eradicate classes, to eliminate exploitation; it is the proletarian revolution.
In declaring that there is a primary contradiction between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat, I hold that in theory there is no problem.

In 1953 at the Finance and Economics Meeting the general line was set forth;
[2] initially we did not dare to propagate it
throughout the entire party but instead we first discussed it at the county
level. At the end of 1953 it was discussed at the Political Consultative
Conference. The Propaganda Department drafted an outline for dissemination
of the general line. During these past three and one-half years, we have
dealt a severe blow to the bourgeoisie; we have also dealt a blow to the
individual economy. Consequently this was reflected in the resolutions of
the 8th Party Congress, which said that the contradiction between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat had been fundamentally resolved. This statement was not
incorrect, but fundamental resolution is not equivalent to complete resolution.
Once the problem of political authority was resolved, the problem of ownership
was fundamentally resolved, but in the economic and political spheres there
was not a complete resolution.

Among the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals, the rightists in the
democratic parties, and a portion of the well-to-do middle peasants, there
were those who opposed the people while standing among them. At that time
this was not seen so clearly, but it was not totally unperceived either (at
that time we were still carrying out transformation). At that time they were
very submissive and obedient, so we said that there was a fundamental resolution.
Today I emphasize this contradiction because they wanted to rebel. At the
Tsingtao Conference this year [3] we saw clearly,
and pointed out that in the urban and rural area there was still a struggle
between the two roads. As this sort of class struggle has not been eradicated
and the rightist elements at this time are wildly advancing, it must be said
that there is a primary contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. But strategically the Tsingtao documents have said it well;
it is all right if those at the meeting know what is primary and what is
secondary. We have not talked about this for a long time. If we now add on
to it, shaking heaven and earth, it would be bad. Now we must continue with
the Tsingtao method of expression for three months.

There is also bourgeois ideology among the workers. Within the party the
three big "isms" have also been unfurled over the bourgeoisie. The two roads
¾ the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, socialism
and capitalism ¾ are the primary contradictions
of the transitional era; for the time being we will not discuss them in the
report. Have we discussed whether or not it is possible to mitigate the
contradictions among the great mass of the people? On the other hand there
are internal bureaucratism, sectarianism and subjectivism; we can write about
this problem theoretically.

The relationship among the working people ¾
contradictions in the relationship between the party and the masses, the
relationship between cadres and the masses, between the individual and the
collective, between the young and the old, and among the workers
¾ are very numerous. If we declare suddenly
that the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is primary,
could this have an effect on the frank airing of views? Not necessarily,
but it could cause squabbling among the workers.

There are two segments of the people; one segment has exploited people and
one segment has not exploited people. In one segment few have been influenced
by bourgeois ideology while in the other many have been influenced. After
several hundred years it will be impossible to unfurl again the banner of
the bourgeoisie; that is the struggle between the advance and the backward.
When we say that large-scale class struggle has fundamentally ended and that
contradictions have been fundamentally resolved, we are speaking of the political
system and the problem of ownership. But in building the superstructure,
the question of ideology and political power in large measures has not been
resolved. Individualism, bureaucratism, idealism are also a matter of building
the superstructure and must be resolved.

After the capitalists began to beat their gongs and drums last year, we
immediately put forth the idea of opposing the bourgeoisie, They were unable
to speak out. This was unpopular, and the result was disadvantageous to us.
Afterwards we had a frank airing of views, and it was easier to manage; we
acquired experience and it was easier to manage. We brought forth "let a
hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend", and so
they let themselves go. In the past the bourgeoisie had been subservient,
and now they raised a great clamor. We had only brought forth frank airing
of views and the rightists aired their views and made a great racket. We
said that there should be a frank airing of views in literature, art, and
academic issues, but they wanted to progress to politics. This year the Communist
Party and the rightists have cooperated to find a method which is good: a
loud and frank airing of views, posting of big-character posters, and carrying
on great debates, meant the discovery of a comparatively more appropriate
form. In Yenan we were not so daring, we had no experience, we did not forbid,
but we also did not express. We had not carried out the socialist revolution
and had no experience, and this episode of frank and loud airing of views
had increased our experience. In the future we shall still wish to have a
frank airing of views. Let a hundred flowers blossom does not embrace
counter-revolution, however. We are able to have a frank airing of views
once a year. To suppress the people as through they are enemies is very
dangerous. In discussing contradictions among the people one must guard against
adopting the method of suppression and coercion.

The first road is to assert that during the transitional period the primary
contradiction is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The second road during a prescribed period should not be discussed in the
newspapers, but the struggle between the two roads should continue to be
propagandized. Do not add these two characters and avoid stirring up a lot
of trouble.

The contradiction among the working people is today being resolved in the
course of the frank airing of views and great debates. As soon as it is mentioned
that the class contradiction is primary, there will be an adverse effect
on rectification and transformation.

Three classes are included among the people: the proletariat, the bourgeoisie,
and the petit bourgeoisie. A contradiction exists among these three segments
of the people. This contradiction is a contradiction among the people, and
it is also a class contradiction. There is a distinction between class
contradictions and contradictions between the enemy and ourselves. Generally
speaking, a contradiction among the people is non-antagonistic while a
contradiction with the bourgeoisie has an antagonistic side. The central
question is the contradictions among the three segments of the people. Among
these a portion are covertly antagonistic. The contradiction with Chang Po-chun,
for example, was an antagonistic contradiction. In confronting this kind
of antagonistic contradiction one should adopt the policy of peeling away
the outer skin of a bamboo shoot. Each year peel away a little. This year
peel away some of the outer skin, but don't peel it all away. After two years
of not propagandizing socialism begin again, and afterwards peel away a little
more. The work On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the
People[4] was not mistaken, but it was not
a complete as the Tsingtao document. Now the primary problem is not the remnants
of feudalism or the remnants of imperialism (the contradiction still exists).
Who hasn't said that Hunan seized 7,000 landlords and rich peasants, but
suddenly there is a problem when you try to seize one Chang po-chun.

Complete as the Tsingtao document, Now the primary problem is not the remnants
of feudalism or the remnants of imperialism (the contradiction still exists).
Who hasn't said that Human seized 7,000 landlords and rich peasants, but
suddenly there is a problem when you try to seize one Chang po-chun. The
bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals, totaling 30 million including
dependents, are a big problem. Al most the working class totals 40 million
people. The largest of the socialist revolution are the bourgeoisie, the
bourgeois intellectuals, and the upper petit bourgeoisie (in the countryside
the well-to-do middle peasants). The bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals
have leftists, while the great majority are centrists and the right wing
accounts for only one or two percent. For more than 90 percent it is a question
of education and a question of criticism. While we say that contradictions
among the people embrace class struggle, the bourgeoisie, still enjoys civil
rights. It cannot be said that the socialist revolution is anti-imperialist
and anti-feudal, but the remnants of imperialist and feudal powers are the
allied army of the rightists of the bourgeoisie. Therefore the landlord paper
Ai-wen Hui-pao is anti-socialist.

At present there are 60,000 rightist elements (10,000 acting and 50,000 writing).
In the future at most there will be 150,000 to 200,000. Of this number those
that can be separated should be separated. For example, towards some engineering
and technical personnel, natural scientists, and scholars, it is even better
if they can be separated. We should work on them. Some people we should criticize
seriously buy treat with leniency as for example Jung I-jen and others.

Now it is clear-cut: in proceeding through the transitional era from capitalism
to socialism, the main (or fundamental) contradiction is the contradiction
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism.
Thus in social relations and interpersonal relations there has been a fundamental
resolution, but there has not been a complete resolution. The landlords,
rich peasants, counter revolutionaries, and bad elements endorse capitalism,
and those who exploit people endorse capitalism. This is also a contradiction
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The struggle between the two
roads will be resolved after a long period of struggle. "Main" and "fundamental"
have the same meaning.

The resolutions of the 8th Party Congress declare that the main contradiction
is the contradiction between the advanced social system and the backward
productive forces. Speaking reasonably, one cannot speak in that manner,
Now there are contradictions, and in the future there will also be
contradictions. When cooperative have all been transformed into state farms
which pay out wages there will still be contradictions. Socialism is comprised
of two sectors: public ownership and collective ownership. In the future,
contradictions will also arise between the two. The socialist system and
the productive forces are fundamentally in conformity, but they also have
areas where there is not total conformity. There are still short comings
and it is incorrect to say that there is perfect conformity. When Stalin
mentioned perfect conformity (official report, page 14) there arose a problem.
The ideology of religion is not in accord with socialism, but we still want
to repair temples. Repairing temples is done to achieve the goal of tearing
down temples, why do we say, this is by and large in accord? Because it can
develop the productive forces. India undertook a five-year plan and increased
its steel output by 300,000 tons. We raised our output by 94 million tons.
Our system does not impede the development of the productive forces. After
several tens of years the contradiction between the collective and the
state-owned sectors will be resolved, but there will still be new contradictions.
When we have arrived at communism, we will not need the law of value and
we will not need an army, the international environment permitting of course.
Marx, Engles, and Lenin never said this sentence which is in the resolutions
of the 8th Party Congress, but there is no harm in it. The meaning is that
we must hurriedly develop production, strengthen the material foundation
of socialist society; it is only that this was not said clearly. Strictly
speaking, it is of course incorrect to say that the socialist system and
the productive forces are not in accord. We are a socialist system developing
its productive forces. A good many economists say there is a contradiction
between our system and the productive forces and that the productive forces
of a socialist system are backward. This sort of talk is bad.

3. The Tsingtao Conference was held in July, 1957, it was
attended by the secretaries of provincial and municipal Party committees.
See "The situation in the summer of 1957",
Selected Works of Mao Tes-tung, Vol. V, pp. 473-482.

4. For this article see Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung,
Vol. V, pp. 384-421.